Article 8 (a) of the Convention specifically obliges each Contracting Party to “establish a system of protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological diversity.” As noted above, many countries have chosen and established their protected areas within the context of attempting to develop a representative system of protected areas for some time, and comprehensive technical guidance on how to do so, such as Miller (1980), has been available for several decades. But as the focus of conservation has shifted to situate species- and site-focused initiatives within landscape-scale, ecoregional and ecosystem approaches, even greater emphasis has been placed on development of national protected areas systems plans, and a number of increasingly sophisticated methodologies for doing so have been developed.
Justus and Sarkar (2002) give the following rationale for a more systematic approach that emphasizes complementarity of protected areas sites within a system:
“Explicit, quantitative procedures for identifying biodiversity priority areas are replacing the often ad hoc procedures used in the past to design networks of reserves to conserve biodiversity. This change facilitates more informed choices by policymakers, and thereby makes possible greater satisfaction of conservation goals with increased efficiency. A key feature of these procedures is the use of the principle of complementarity, which ensures that areas chosen for inclusion in a reserve network complement those already selected.”
Selection of protected areas can be guided by scientifically developed tools aiming for not only including a representative sample of communities and species, but also for evaluating a protected area network in terms of its potential to sustain viable populations of focal species. These methods include site-selection algorithms (see example in Pressey et al. 1996) that select the optimal set of sites given one or several sets of criteria (e.g. number of species, habitats/ecosystem types, minimized edge lengths etc.). Furthermore, new population modelling tools can estimate viability and long-term survival of species in a network of habitat patches. It should be noted that these methods can be applied not only at a planning stage for setting up a new protected area system, but also used to evaluate existing systems and thus giving guidance for strengthening them73. Such methodologies are increasingly being applied to on-the-ground conservation planning in numerous countries including Australia 74/ and South Africa. 75/
A methodologically simpler set of generic protected area system planning guidelines has been developed by IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA). WCPA’s best practice guidelines on National System Planning for Protected Areas, state that:
“A system plan is the design of a total reserve system covering the full range of ecosystems and communities found in a particular country. The plan should identify the range of purposes of protected areas and help to balance different objectives… [and]….identify the relationships among the system components….It should help demonstrate important linkages with other aspects of economic development…. [and]….should be a means to establish the priorities for workable national system of protected areas”. 76/
System planning is encouraged by WCPA and others because it (a) ensures representative coverage of a country’s biodiversity; (b) provides opportunities to link protected areas planning to consideration of issues in the wider geographic, institutional an economic landscape; and (c) can serve as a tool for considering and setting priorities at the national level. The WCPA recommendations on essential elements for a national protected areas system plan are presented in box 6.
A technically detailed and field-tested methodology for national system planning is the Ecoregional Planning (ERP) methodology developed by The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and now being applied by a number of governments and NGOs. The ERP methodology, which requires a collaborative, multi-stakeholder process, goes beyond “coarse-scale” prioritization schemes, and provides “a practical yet science-based planning framework for identifying the priority conservation areas within ecoregions”. 77/ In China, for example, the State Environmental Protection Agency, in collaboration with TNC and a range of government agencies, is initiating an ERP-based exercise that aims to develop a national system plan of priority protected areas. In addition, a large number of state and federal government agencies in the United States are applying this ERP methodology, and the Government of Chile is considering using it as well.
The ERP Methodology uses the ecoregion as the unit of analysis, which it defines as “large areas of the earth’s surface that have similarities in faunal and floral composition due to large-scale, predictable patterns of solar radiation and moisture”. Within each ecoregion, the methodology encompasses six general steps: (i) collection of information (and identification of information gaps); (ii) identification of conservation targets (e.g., coastal mangrove forests); (iii) establishment of conservation goals; (iv) assessment of existing conservation areas (and identification of gaps in coverage); (v) evaluation of the ability of conservation targets to persist over time (including assessment of critical threats); and (vi) assembly of a portfolio of conservation areas. The methodology is designed to “identify a set of conservation areas that best represents the native species and ecosystems of the region and the underlying ecological processes that sustain them”. The primary output of the process is identification of a “portfolio” or network of lands and waters for conserving the elements of biodiversity within an ecoregion. 78/ Determining how to best design and manage those conservation areas (i.e. protected areas) requires more detailed site-planning at finer scales, discussed below.
Review of how well the system samples the biodiversity and other natural and associated cultural heritage of the country;
Procedures for selecting and designing additional protected areas so that the system as a whole has better characteristics;
Identification of the ways in which activities undertaken at national, regional and local levels interact to fulfil national and regional objectives for a system of protected areas;
A clear basis for integration and coordination of protected areas with other aspects of national planning (e.g. with national biodiversity strategies, but also with land use, economic and social planning.);
Assessment of the existing institutional framework for protected areas (relationships, linkages and responsibilities) and identification of priorities for capacity building;
Priorities for further evolution of the protected areas system;
Procedures for deciding the management category most appropriate to each existing and proposed unit;
Identification of investment needs and priorities;
Identification of training and human resource development needs for protected areas management; and
Guidelines for preparation and implementation of management policies and site-level management plans.
Source: Davey 1998.
TNC’s regional planning framework has been utilized for the development of over 45 ecoregional and regional conservation plans in the United States, Latin America, the Caribbean, Micronesia, and China’s Yunnan Province. To facilitate the process, TNC has prepared a detailed Practitioner’s Handbook to Ecoregional Conservation Planning. 79/
Both the WCPA and ERP frameworks for protected areas system planning point out that the process by which a plan is prepared is as important as the ultimate content of the plan. The WCPA guidelines stress that if a plan is to be effective, it must reflect “on-ground needs and priorities, and must be ‘owned’ by those who will have to implement it…” and notes that “it is desirable to include the participation of the local people who live in and around the parks (or have other traditional or economic links with them) in developing the plan.” 80/ The ERP framework also emphasizes the importance of broad stakeholder participation.
